[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6325720,"mediaKeyId","2332026-d693a6673de1065869d5551147429509","parentId",2332026,"title","Subcommittee debates 'tavern' license; members seek town‑level approval language and higher fees to cover enforcement","audioSeconds",3114,"startMs",3991000,"endMs",7105000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2332026-d693a6673de1065869d5551147429509&start=3991&end=7105","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2332026-d693a6673de1065869d5551147429509/thumbnail_3991000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6325720/New-Hampshire/Subcommittee-debates-tavern-license-members-seek-townlevel-approval-language-and-higher-fees-to-cover-enforcement","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325720-9b6cde0671abf72992f496caf71be105/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139847&Signature=iQtidNqBsjv0yyb4QygH00EYpu~Rod71CwbAi~1zxCvdsHfIQAO~rZUVROQejSetq3W9WW9uuHDZ4N3~tD8rkAC21SMNGcmnGz1ge6DvQEs32w2Liw-xNEgGxpbNFJyFEA6NosPeJxvNowUa3MUdTpE5Tj95jeQWxRxIPdPPjSrXqyD-6CTRoRhRl62ZFD0cOP6zkW7E6QyY1-GwZhPyxXxyfy8D-OZS4LzdLq3i~bEwf-IXgzzjSY~JBMKJI95DX6zU8EuQ9kTq6gxHMnOgojMZndoprkwuy-~EKDKmdDqrpGEuxYTlskpb532n3lEFyzxo4uZGmbhzUmJkLvsZGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","A Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee spent substantial time debating a proposed \"tavern\" liquor license that would allow alcohol‑only establishments without a food requirement. No final subcommittee vote on the bill was taken; members asked staff to draft amendments requiring affirmative town approval before issuing tavern licenses and to refine licensing fees to reflect local enforcement costs.

Danielle Ellison, deputy chief of New Hampshire Liquor Enforcement, described the proposal’s age restriction: “The reason we did 21 plus is, there's no food. There's only alcohol.” She said the proposed new license could create nightclubs or late‑night establishments because the draft does not by itself limit live entertainment or operating hours. Ellison confirmed the commission currently notifies towns of applications and that local input triggers a hearings process.

Committee members expressed concerns about public safety, local control, and potential for favoritism. Several legislators said they wanted explicit statutory language requiring a town to affirmatively vote to allow tavern licenses before applications would be accepted; one member suggested lifting ballot language used in a prior social‑district statute as a model. Members also pressed whether towns could cap the number of taverns; staff and enforcement representatives said municipalities already can object during the licensing process and can impose local limits in some statutory contexts.

Licensing fee and enforcement costs drew extended comment. The committee discussed raising the fee above the current top liquor fee ($12.80 is the highest existing fee mentioned in committee) and one suggestion in the hearing put a tavern fee at $6,400 (a multiple of current top fees). Law enforcement representatives said local policing resources and life‑safety oversight for establishments without food are greater than for typical on‑premise licenses, and recommended fees reflect that burden.

Several local officials and commission staff urged that draft language require towns to expressly permit tavern licenses, rather than relying on the current notice-and-object process. Committee members agreed to draft statutory language making issuance contingent on an affirmative town vote or warrant-article approval; staff will prepare a statutory amendment for future consideration.

Key items discussed

- Age limit: proposed tavern license would be 21+, per Liquor Enforcement explanation, because venues would be alcohol‑only.
- Town approval: members directed staff to add language requiring an affirmative municipal vote or formal local approval before the commission may issue a tavern license in that municipality.
- Fee/enforcement: committee discussed a license fee materially higher than current top fees to cover increased enforcement and life‑safety costs; $6,400 and a multiplier of the current $12.80 top fee were raised as options.
- Operations: license would not prohibit serving food, but a tavern could operate without a full kitchen; health and building codes and local permitting would still apply.

Next steps: staff will draft amendment language to require town-level affirmative approval and propose a fee structure; committee will revisit the bill after staff and commission input.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Commerce and Consumer Affairs (02/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","A House Commerce subcommittee debated a proposal to create a tavern license that would permit alcohol‑only establishments, with members asking staff to add language requiring towns to vote affirmatively before licenses are issued and to propose a higher fee to cover enforcement.","taxTitle","Commerce and Consumer Affairs, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17743,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6325725,"Subcommittee leans toward paint stewardship plan without explicit manufacturer fee; antitrust exemption included",680,2105000,2785000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2332026-d693a6673de1065869d5551147429509&start=2105&end=2785","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2332026-d693a6673de1065869d5551147429509/thumbnail_2105000.jpg","/articles/6325725/New-Hampshire/Subcommittee-leans-toward-paint-stewardship-plan-without-explicit-manufacturer-fee-antitrust-exemption-included","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325725-f5fa8f03bc5723aa7edbea0c24434337/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139847&Signature=J-nSp9-0i1Sg6sedAefLmWTYfnZNgVomRGZLU818WSofadRyqEPKYhap9Ksr7u9Kz3IlkWRos9JuwK-AMAEKMGbICD~NAxUIXsbGKL-qCz7FOngT9oa-ih1IB2KV-9PqYtS6Jsr96fvgJzhNXC9DGCBvURqh3lqxojuBxMn7hEYQCLgU02dyVVc5B2RnuC-K5l6O9mg4oV8NX5i870V-FrZAgHSC1FNsuUlH1SaFWUSxhsGCfSDXq97GpoDURETfjU8fdOQzxn5bu3vpYXFh8zD3mdF~a-BfYZXIiJQKCodtuckiuSj636OYjtmJHQWzFndwqxXQP7qGHhXqFNw4uw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee heard testimony and moved forward with a paint stewardship proposal that strips explicit fee language and instead requires manufacturers or arranger organizations to submit a plan to the Department of Environmental Services (DES) for review.

Representatives discussed the “infamous fee” during the hearing; the sponsor said the amendment removes statutory language that set a fee amount or placed the assessment on invoices, replacing it with a requirement that a stewardship plan be presented to DES for oversight. The sponsor summarized the change as: “it takes out all statements about the fee. It just simply says there’s a plan will be involved. … They do need to bring it to DES to look it over.”

Committee members pressed on liability and antitrust risk. The draft includes language intended to exempt participating manufacturers or representative organizations from the state antitrust statute noted in testimony as “RSA 3 56,” but the committee clarified that the exemption is limited: it does not shield participants from environmental liability for spills or other damage. Jonathan Melanson of Demers, Prasal & Thomas, representing the American Coatings Association, told the committee operators must follow “environmentally sound management practices” and should maintain appropriate environmental liability coverage.

DES representatives said the department reviewed the draft and would continue oversight of any plan. Members also discussed administrative details such as how the plan would be reviewed, what kinds of contractor arrangements could be used for collection and recycling, and how to avoid apparent antitrust risks that have arisen in other states.

The subcommittee took a straw vote in favor of a sponsor amendment and forward movement; members announced an 8‑member favorable count in the straw/subcommittee vote. Sponsor and staff said the draft would be finalized and brought back with formal amendment language.

Key points

- The amendment removes explicit statutory language setting a fee and instead requires a stewardship plan to be submitted to DES for review.
- Draft includes an antitrust exemption for manufacturers/organizers implementing the program (referenced in committee as RSA 3 56); testimony clarified that environmental liability and cleanup obligations remain.
- American Coatings Association counsel Jonathan Melanson highlighted that plans must include “environmentally sound management practices” and insurance coverage.
- Subcommittee cast a straw vote in favor of the amendment (announced 8 in favor); final amendment language to be drafted and circulated.

Next steps: staff will prepare the formal amendment language and circulate it for the full committee. The committee indicated willingness to continue work on clarifying plan oversight and liability protections.","Lawmakers accepted a draft that removes explicit fee language from a paint stewardship bill, substitutes a requirement for a producer plan reviewed by DES, and includes an antitrust exemption for organizers while preserving environmental liability. Subcommittee members gave straw approval to the amendment.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6325730,"Commerce subcommittee advances amended bill limiting local rules on digital-asset mining; private-key language removed",1436,592000,2028000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2332026-d693a6673de1065869d5551147429509&start=592&end=2028","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2332026-d693a6673de1065869d5551147429509/thumbnail_592000.jpg","/articles/6325730/New-Hampshire/Commerce-subcommittee-advances-amended-bill-limiting-local-rules-on-digital-asset-mining-private-key-language-removed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325730-77ae0c413a0cde0e7a07922e0bea0f38/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139847&Signature=WEpuvrQEmjR2PYmSmGQpjkndeC1WcCahwJYIqBsvkQb5D6mSVtsNg-YWAHDiG~gwV9-JwE7IvxTQbpqQGUD1hV0KFBsU5GWcdmwuaiSC0PoKDhEyxc8SE6KB~wqGxBUwoSTGNl1TkDjSS5QkhCq5LbYJU-Ag7m-C7ff~WUPTpMK9ZCwPw80m2CDi0gjY0c7IDgoc0exlGm-0qdfxyfWFHUgM8wBXk~Sk7LqemWLcr0s9o5mAA0rKq4ugOcj8Irig2HiDtEvgv3zTHb7ovW-60QsKB2Z2ZLew6T8POEhoaIuYlkikw-ys3bOhkBb3kHe8kuTdyw9CocE~8DU3udHSmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A House Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee on Tuesday advanced an amended bill that would limit how state and local governments may regulate digital-asset (cryptocurrency) mining operations, delete a proposed private‑key requirement, and bar discriminatory electricity rate schedules specifically targeted at miners.

The subcommittee voted to adopt amendments and recommended the bill ought to pass as amended in subcommittee by a 7–1 tally. Representative Ammon moved the first amendment (0138h) with Representative Speer seconding; members indicated support by raised hands. Later, an amended version (0445h) also passed in subcommittee before the committee voted 7–1 to move the bill forward.

The amendment package removes two definitions — including “private key” and “home digital asset mining” — and deletes a proposed private‑key enforcement section. Sponsors said the private‑key language was intentionally dropped so an oversight commission can revisit how to handle that technical issue. The sponsor described the change as “we decided that it was best to just remove that from the bill instead of bicker over it.”

One provision retained in the amended draft would bar a “state or local government agency or subdivision thereof” from setting a specific decibel limit for noise generated by digital‑asset operations beyond existing local noise ordinances. The measure also says rate schedules that create a “discriminatory rate for digital asset mining businesses” are not permitted; the amendment language requires rates for mining to be market‑based rather than singling out the businesses for higher charges.

Committee discussion focused on enforcement and practical effects. Several members asked who would enforce the new limits if a city or town took action the bill prohibits. Committee members suggested the attorney general or banking regulators could become involved and noted that affected parties also could pursue remedies in court. One legislator told colleagues: “If some local government does it, someone can take them to court and say they violated [the statute].\" Another member said the bill does not mandate state officials to invest in gold or other assets, calling that discussion “not related to this bill.”

Members also raised electric‑grid concerns. Lawmakers asked whether large mining loads could create local reliability problems and how utilities would respond. Supporters said mining can act as a flexible load — running when power is cheap and reducing draw when prices rise — and that interconnection and PUC oversight would apply for large, sustained demands.

Sponsor and staff comments said the aim of the draft is prophylactic: to prevent local governments from enacting requirements that single out digital‑asset mining for limits that do not apply to other industrial or large electrical users. The sponsor said the intent was to ensure towns treat mining “not different than any other zoning regulation when it comes to utility and it comes to noise.”

Next steps: staff were directed to prepare the amendment text for the full committee and produce a summary (a “blurb”) to circulate ahead of the next hearing.

Votes at a glance

- Amendment 0138h — Motion: Ought to pass as amended; Mover: Representative Ammon; Second: Representative Speer; Vote recorded by raised hands (count announced by clerk: 6 in favor); Outcome: approved in subcommittee.
- Amendment 0445h — Motion: Ought to pass on the amendment; Mover: Representative Ammon; Second: Representative Speer; Straw/subcommittee vote recorded as 7 in favor; Outcome: approved in subcommittee.
- Final subcommittee motion on the bill, as amended — Motion moved and seconded in subcommittee; Vote: 7 yes, 1 no; Outcome: advanced out of subcommittee.

Context and what’s next

Committee members said the bill is intended to prevent local ordinances from uniquely restricting mining on noise or electricity grounds without treating the industry like other industrial users. Staff and sponsors will finalize amendment language before the bill goes to a future committee session.

\"No state or local government agency or subdivision thereof shall set a specific limit on sound decibels generated from noise, including digital asset [mining], other than the limits set by the political subdivision and any local noise ordinances,\" reads the amendment language reviewed in committee.","A House Commerce subcommittee voted to advance an amended bill governing digital-asset (cryptocurrency) mining, deleting private-key provisions and restricting certain local actions on sound limits and discriminatory electricity rates. The subcommittee approved amendments and reported the measure out of subcommittee by a 7–1 vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee debates 'tavern' license; members seek town‑level approval language and higher fees to cover enforcement

Subcommittee leans toward paint stewardship plan without explicit manufacturer fee; antitrust exemption included

Commerce subcommittee advances amended bill limiting local rules on digital-asset mining; private-key language removed